7 ms·

How Microsoft Pays Big Money To Smear Google In European Parliament

185 points by patrickaljord 15y ago

boubountu 15y ago
So what? The most important is the content. Did they give wrong examples about Google? This is similar to when giving Coca-Cola as an example of how bad soda drinks are. It does not mean that Pepsi is good.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "It does not mean that Pepsi is good." But yet, that is exactly what MS is implying. Check out the shameful "Google salesman" ad that MS put out lately for more of the same.
  - boubountu 15y ago
    I am not vouching for MS nor Google. I don't take sides. All what I am interested in is to know wether the examples given about google were valid or not.
    - oakgrove 15y ago
      In the context of the situation it doesn't matter. This person is a member of parliament who's time presumably is valuable and shouldn't be wasted listening to propaganda. Furthermore the person also said that the meeting was purported to be about one thing and when he went in to listen discovered that it was actually about something completely else. So they were dishonest in getting him to listen in the first place. I don't want a member of the government being duped into listening to anything via dishonest means and then sitting around thinking "Well they lied to me to get me in here but maybe they have some good points." If anything it's a shame the organizers of the event can't be brought up on charges. Criminal lying with the intent to deceive or something. /s
    - Dylan16807 15y ago
      oakgrove, you appear to be hellbanned. copying your useful comment: In the context of the situation it doesn't matter. This person is a member of parliament who's time presumably is valuable and shouldn't be wasted listening to propaganda. Furthermore the person also said that the meeting was purported to be about one thing and when he went in to listen discovered that it was actually about something completely else. So they were dishonest in getting him to listen in the first place. I don't want a member of the government being duped into listening to anything via dishonest means and then sitting around thinking "Well they lied to me to get me in here but maybe they have some good points." If anything it's a shame the organizers of the event can't be brought up on charges. Criminal lying with the intent to deceive or something. /s
      - cooldeal 15y ago
        Oakgrove is specifically banned because he's a hateful anti-MS troll on multiple sites. Pasting his messages and informing him about the banning goes against the express wishes of those who work hark hard for all of us to have a nice and civil site to use. He is now going to use different accounts to troll HN. Do you think someone collects -31 karma from HN moderation for making great comments or reddit type attacks? Please at least read through someones comments before informing them as a knee jerk reaction. I am disappointed.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    The salesman ad was shameful but Mac vs. PC was fair game. Why? Just because of your technical convictions?
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      ... I don't recall ever saying that Mac vs. PC was fair game. Please don't project onto me. I thought they were in poor taste - as it tends to be when a company spends more time trashing a competitor than touting its own products. I for one am happy that Apple has moved past that marketing tactic. That said, even Mac vs. PC was better done than the salesman ad - PC was always the well-meaning, wholesome, but hopelessly out of date buffoon... whereas Google here is being portrayed as slimy, dishonest, and malicious. There's a difference - in my eyes this is incredibly poor form on MS's part.
      - cooldeal 15y ago
        well-meaning, wholesome, but hopelessly out of date buffoon? More like: "Two men stand side by side in front of a featureless, white background. "Hello, I'm a Mac," says the guy on the right (who is much younger and dressed in jeans). "And I'm a PC," says the guy on the left (who wears dorky glasses, ill-fitting khakis, and a jacket and tie). The two men discuss the many advantages of using a Mac and seem to agree that Macs are "better" than PCs" >Google here is being portrayed as slimy, dishonest, and malicious. The salesman is being projected that way, and I hope you know how IT salesmen work, they're just maybe one notch above used car salesmen, You can take it as a parody if you will. And it wasn't plastered all over prime TV like the Apple ads were, it was just a video uploaded to YouTube(atleast for now). If you have any beef with misleading or wrong content in the ad(like there was in some Apple ads) I am willing to take a look at your argument.
        potatolicious 15y ago
        I think we need to declare some things here: looking at your comments throughout this thread I'm going to ask you straight up: are you employed by, or affiliated with Microsoft? It seems like you're the only here leaping to MS's defense at every turn. I'm willing to accept that's simply your stance, but we should put this to rest. I'll go first: I am not employed by Google, nor have ever been employed by Google, nor by any subsidiary, nor have I ever worked for a Google affiliate (marketing firm, contract firm, etc). > "who wears dorky glasses, ill-fitting khakis, and a jacket and tie" That's the point. PC was always the "nice guy" - PC was never portrayed as slimy, perverted, belligerent, or even stupid. He's the hopelessly out-of-date nerd, which in itself is not a fair characterization of Windows/PC users, but at least doesn't have the malicious implications that you get with a very obvious "used car salesman" character. > "The salesman is being projected that way, and I hope you know how IT salesmen work" You're applying this standard to Google, but not in reverse to MS. The whole ad in summary was "Google is slimy. Their products suck, and they are willing to lie and swindle you to get you to sign on the dotted line". You're saying that all IT sales is like that - yet the clear implication in the ad was that Microsoft is not like this. So if we're taking you at your word that all IT sales works in slimy ways and that this is true across the board, then Microsoft lied by implying that their own sales guys aren't. > "If you have any beef with misleading or wrong content in the ad" Oh here we go. This is the same lame defense political attack ads use: "there's nothing factually inaccurate in this ad! What're you complaining about?! We didn't say that our opponent goes easy on rapists, who cares about tone, connotation, and implication?" As always, attack ads (whether political or commercial) are in general in poor form, but MS has really crossed a whole other threshold with this one. FWIW, it really takes away from their products and good work that is being done at MS. The more MS attacks its competitors directly in its marketing message, the less consumers will perceive MS products as good in their own right. The Google Salesman ad was done in incredibly poor taste, shows very poor judgment on the part of MS marketing, and is not only unfair to Google, but more important is unfair to Microsoft, who is working on some genuinely kickass products. They blew an opportunity to brag about the superior features of Office and instead spent it slandering a competitor in the most hamfisted manner imaginable. The Office team at MS is probably the most innovative team in the realm of their core products. They're the ones who voluntarily threw out years of UI and went back to the drawing board for the ribbon (which despite the mocking of its competitors, *works really well). They have shown a tenacity for constant product improvement that deserves to be recognized, and instead MS is spending its time doing "hurr Google evil, incompetent, and would probably steal your stapler if he could".
yoyar 15y ago
Vilify Microsoft if you like; I won't object, there's plenty there to work with. But really, what's the core problem here? The core of it is that the government is able to use force to control people/corporations. You might be OK with that when it works for you but when it goes the other way you might want to pay attention as well. Does anyone really expect that politicians from Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) are going to make correct decisions about regulating the internet? Well, given their stellar record I suppose they'll do a fantastic job. Much better to let consumers decide.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Yea, I know about the cookie law fiasco.
- smsm42 15y ago
  +1 to that. In other comments people discuss if Microsoft was "convicted monopolist" or not - but much more important point is that all those convictions were absolutely useless and only represented chest-pounding and money-grabbing. What undermined Microsoft grip on OS and browser markets wasn't EU parliament or US DOJ. It was enterprising people offering viable alternatives. It is said that there's no bigger enemy of capitalism than capitalists. Big established businesses hate competition and would be much more comfortable enjoying lunches with government officials then competing with thousands of new kids on the block threatening to undermine them. So no wonder Microsoft seeks this route when it is available to them and wants to leverage politicians into competitive advantage. The power is out there, do you expect them just to ignore it? If the politicians take on themselves to be the judges of the markets, no wonder major markets players come to them and try to make them see things their way! This is happening and will keep happening inevitably. Of course, these tactics look stinky to the public, and it's proper to expose them - but don't expect them to go anywhere as long as there are politicians that have huge powers over the markets and players there. It's not like Microsoft is unique in doing something like this - every major player is doing it every day.
- nyellin 15y ago
  This. Large corporations are always going to attempt shitty legal maneuvers out of self interest. The real questions is whether the information revolution will succeed creating a more informed society, changing the way people vote and the way politicians legislate, bringing crap like this mostly to an end because of increased transparency. That, and so long as political mores remain unchanged, year after year we'll see scandal after scandal.
bithopper 15y ago
One wonders if a proper reaction would be to separate personal beliefs and a desire to build away from the effects of PR schemes and people. It seems like the current state is absurd, and that acknowledging this and getting on with making stuff is the easiest thing to do. The worrying part of ignoring, is not knowing what kind of impact these acts will have on oneself and the products one produces.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jobeirne 15y ago
This guy doesn't know the definition of 'monopoly.' Neither MS nor Google qualifies: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/note19.htm http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/note19.htm
- Zirro 15y ago
  I see "convicted monopolist" and "monopolistic behaviour" in the article. Where is he saying that either of them is a monopoly?
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly over operating systems in general, and google doesn't have a monopoly over search. But I think microsoft does have a monopoly when it comes to running most of the programs that a business already has. You can more or less replace unix with unix but you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet.
  - berntb 15y ago
    >>you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet. That will be impossible in practice. It is in a monopoly's interest to not be compatible, so they will make complex systems that will be expensive and take a long time to be bug-compatible with. And when the APIs are cloned, they will have gone to something else. All this will also be well locked down with patents. The worst part (well, worst for me) is that the resulting systems will be unnecessarily complex and hence unpleasant to use for developers. That is, it lowers my life quality if I work with their systems.
- barrkel 15y ago
  A US court made a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
  - 15y ago
yanw 15y ago
"The Economist" on a similar Microsoft/ICOMP/Burson-Marsteller anti-Google event that took place in London: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-google http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-g...
- Falkvinge 15y ago
  Thank you for this little gem. I have added it as an update.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Microsoft still seems to have that culture of playing dirty tricks on competitors. It has stuck with them.
powertower 15y ago
The slanderous words used at this seminar, which is brought together by many companies, with one being the convicted monopolist Microsoft... > in Google’s latest privacy scandal > Google made the headlines again > allegations that Google has downranked relevant search results Who wouldn't be enraged! Look. At. Those. Words. > designed to plant ungrounded ideas in the audience’s mind. Now. Think. Of. The. Children. And then they had the audacity to call the Google representatives to speak!
trotsky 15y ago
Is the definition of lobbyist different in Europe? Is the Pirate MP just not subjected to lobbyists otherwise or is this just mock outrage? It is very hard for me to believe this kind of anti-competitor lobbying doesn't go on all the time at the EP. It certainly does in Washington.
- yobbobandana 15y ago
  I imagine this article was intended as PR for the Pirate Party. "This is the kind of stuff we do not like, vote for us if you also do not like it." I think it targets their core demographic quite well. Whether it is mock outrage or not is a moot point.
  - seabee 15y ago
    Whether anti-competitor lobbying goes on regularly is also a moot point. Being an MEP does not disqualify you from disliking parts of or associated with the EP. As an extreme example, the UK Independence Party (who want to leave the EU) have several elected MEPs. As such I feel confused by what the grandparent comment is trying to express.
    - trotsky 15y ago
      It does if all you're doing is singling out one specific participant and ignoring all other examples. Because then it becomes clear that you are just looking for either a good reason to trash that party or rush to the defense of the aggrieved. Which wouldn't be surprising, considering Google is most definitely spending their own lobbying dollars.
- kzrdude 15y ago
  A good lobbyist doesn't lie, doesn't FUD and maybe even doesn't exaggerate. Are your expectations different?
- SteveJS 15y ago
  This seems like some relevant history on your point. June 22, 2000: "Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley, says she does not see her constituent companies worried about DOJ antitrust scrutiny." http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18808921/the-men-who-took-down-microsoft.htm http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18808921/the-men-wh...
davyjones 15y ago
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Gandhi. I would like to insert "then they slander you, " right after the last comma.
- ootachi 15y ago
  Can we please not equate Google to Gandhi? Google is a corporation every bit as large, and every bit as purely self-interested, as Microsoft.
cooldeal 15y ago
I am sure Google only says good things about MS during its hifi lobbying efforts. Right? Imagine a convicted monopolist arguing that it's rivals be held to the same standard as it was. Not that is going to get much traction on this antiMS and proGoogle site.
- gregable 15y ago
  I'm not sure that Google concentrates it's lobbying efforts to say anything one way or the other about Microsoft. It seems it's biggest efforts were in trying to prevent SOPA/PIPA.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    Google outspent Microsoft in lobbying efforts spending in the US in 2011. Also, it has a commercial interest in SOPA not passing so their opposition is to be expected for their bottomline. If you think lobbying isn't done to enhance any company's bottomline at the expense of everyone else, then you're mistaken. http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-revealed-as-source-of-windows-vista-complaint/ http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-reveal...
    - archangel_one 15y ago
      Sure, maybe Google spent a lot on lobbying in 2011, but you don't know that any of that was smearing Microsoft from behind a sock puppet in the way that they have against Google here. While I don't like lobbying, I accept that Google needs to play the game while the rules are the way they are, and they don't necessarily have to badmouth Microsoft to do that - as you admit, they have presumably focused more on SOPA. And I don't see the huge problem with the link you present - in fact I don't think I'd call it "lobbying" at all. Google had a potentially legitimate complaint in asking that the court overseeing a convicted monopolist considers a particular part of their behaviour which obviously has the potential to impact on Google. It's up to the court to decide if they're infringing or not.
- mda 15y ago
  Can you show me a single example where Google did anything like this?
ceol 15y ago
> What did Google have to do with this discussion in need for regulating governments’ appetite for citizen data and corporations abusing their privacy policies? Everything. I would not be surprised if Google knew more than your government knows about you. Hopefully that does not sound sensationalist. Google also has come under a fire for their privacy policy changes, so that seminar was certainly not baseless, and I think it was a bit naive to assume a seminar about privacy wouldn't focus on Google. Maybe not the entire focus, but surely it would take up a noticeable chunk. Coming from Microsoft, however, I could see why the author walked out. The goal was not to educate the government or its people; the goal was to scare people into using Microsoft products.
rickmb 15y ago
Given Google's arrogant "we piss on stupid EU privacy sensibilities" stance, I wonder why Microsoft even bothers to poor gasoline on a an already raging fire. Besides, Google's anti-piracy and anti-privacy stance is largely opposed to everything Falkvinge stands for, whilst Microsoft has been playing relatively nice with civil rights for the past decade or so. The only problem I see here is that Microsoft is hiding behind some fake lobbyist front. What they are lobbying for sounds mostly factual to me.

185 points by patrickaljord 15y ago

So what? The most important is the content. Did they give wrong examples about Google? This is similar to when giving Coca-Cola as an example of how bad soda drinks are. It does not mean that Pepsi is good.

potatolicious 15y ago
> "It does not mean that Pepsi is good." But yet, that is exactly what MS is implying. Check out the shameful "Google salesman" ad that MS put out lately for more of the same.
- boubountu 15y ago
  I am not vouching for MS nor Google. I don't take sides. All what I am interested in is to know wether the examples given about google were valid or not.
  - oakgrove 15y ago
    In the context of the situation it doesn't matter. This person is a member of parliament who's time presumably is valuable and shouldn't be wasted listening to propaganda. Furthermore the person also said that the meeting was purported to be about one thing and when he went in to listen discovered that it was actually about something completely else. So they were dishonest in getting him to listen in the first place. I don't want a member of the government being duped into listening to anything via dishonest means and then sitting around thinking "Well they lied to me to get me in here but maybe they have some good points." If anything it's a shame the organizers of the event can't be brought up on charges. Criminal lying with the intent to deceive or something. /s
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    oakgrove, you appear to be hellbanned. copying your useful comment: In the context of the situation it doesn't matter. This person is a member of parliament who's time presumably is valuable and shouldn't be wasted listening to propaganda. Furthermore the person also said that the meeting was purported to be about one thing and when he went in to listen discovered that it was actually about something completely else. So they were dishonest in getting him to listen in the first place. I don't want a member of the government being duped into listening to anything via dishonest means and then sitting around thinking "Well they lied to me to get me in here but maybe they have some good points." If anything it's a shame the organizers of the event can't be brought up on charges. Criminal lying with the intent to deceive or something. /s
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      Oakgrove is specifically banned because he's a hateful anti-MS troll on multiple sites. Pasting his messages and informing him about the banning goes against the express wishes of those who work hark hard for all of us to have a nice and civil site to use. He is now going to use different accounts to troll HN. Do you think someone collects -31 karma from HN moderation for making great comments or reddit type attacks? Please at least read through someones comments before informing them as a knee jerk reaction. I am disappointed.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  The salesman ad was shameful but Mac vs. PC was fair game. Why? Just because of your technical convictions?
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    ... I don't recall ever saying that Mac vs. PC was fair game. Please don't project onto me. I thought they were in poor taste - as it tends to be when a company spends more time trashing a competitor than touting its own products. I for one am happy that Apple has moved past that marketing tactic. That said, even Mac vs. PC was better done than the salesman ad - PC was always the well-meaning, wholesome, but hopelessly out of date buffoon... whereas Google here is being portrayed as slimy, dishonest, and malicious. There's a difference - in my eyes this is incredibly poor form on MS's part.
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      well-meaning, wholesome, but hopelessly out of date buffoon? More like: "Two men stand side by side in front of a featureless, white background. "Hello, I'm a Mac," says the guy on the right (who is much younger and dressed in jeans). "And I'm a PC," says the guy on the left (who wears dorky glasses, ill-fitting khakis, and a jacket and tie). The two men discuss the many advantages of using a Mac and seem to agree that Macs are "better" than PCs" >Google here is being portrayed as slimy, dishonest, and malicious. The salesman is being projected that way, and I hope you know how IT salesmen work, they're just maybe one notch above used car salesmen, You can take it as a parody if you will. And it wasn't plastered all over prime TV like the Apple ads were, it was just a video uploaded to YouTube(atleast for now). If you have any beef with misleading or wrong content in the ad(like there was in some Apple ads) I am willing to take a look at your argument.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        I think we need to declare some things here: looking at your comments throughout this thread I'm going to ask you straight up: are you employed by, or affiliated with Microsoft? It seems like you're the only here leaping to MS's defense at every turn. I'm willing to accept that's simply your stance, but we should put this to rest. I'll go first: I am not employed by Google, nor have ever been employed by Google, nor by any subsidiary, nor have I ever worked for a Google affiliate (marketing firm, contract firm, etc). > "who wears dorky glasses, ill-fitting khakis, and a jacket and tie" That's the point. PC was always the "nice guy" - PC was never portrayed as slimy, perverted, belligerent, or even stupid. He's the hopelessly out-of-date nerd, which in itself is not a fair characterization of Windows/PC users, but at least doesn't have the malicious implications that you get with a very obvious "used car salesman" character. > "The salesman is being projected that way, and I hope you know how IT salesmen work" You're applying this standard to Google, but not in reverse to MS. The whole ad in summary was "Google is slimy. Their products suck, and they are willing to lie and swindle you to get you to sign on the dotted line". You're saying that all IT sales is like that - yet the clear implication in the ad was that Microsoft is not like this. So if we're taking you at your word that all IT sales works in slimy ways and that this is true across the board, then Microsoft lied by implying that their own sales guys aren't. > "If you have any beef with misleading or wrong content in the ad" Oh here we go. This is the same lame defense political attack ads use: "there's nothing factually inaccurate in this ad! What're you complaining about?! We didn't say that our opponent goes easy on rapists, who cares about tone, connotation, and implication?" As always, attack ads (whether political or commercial) are in general in poor form, but MS has really crossed a whole other threshold with this one. FWIW, it really takes away from their products and good work that is being done at MS. The more MS attacks its competitors directly in its marketing message, the less consumers will perceive MS products as good in their own right. The Google Salesman ad was done in incredibly poor taste, shows very poor judgment on the part of MS marketing, and is not only unfair to Google, but more important is unfair to Microsoft, who is working on some genuinely kickass products. They blew an opportunity to brag about the superior features of Office and instead spent it slandering a competitor in the most hamfisted manner imaginable. The Office team at MS is probably the most innovative team in the realm of their core products. They're the ones who voluntarily threw out years of UI and went back to the drawing board for the ribbon (which despite the mocking of its competitors, *works really well). They have shown a tenacity for constant product improvement that deserves to be recognized, and instead MS is spending its time doing "hurr Google evil, incompetent, and would probably steal your stapler if he could".

yoyar 15y ago

Vilify Microsoft if you like; I won't object, there's plenty there to work with. But really, what's the core problem here? The core of it is that the government is able to use force to control people/corporations. You might be OK with that when it works for you but when it goes the other way you might want to pay attention as well. Does anyone really expect that politicians from Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) are going to make correct decisions about regulating the internet? Well, given their stellar record I suppose they'll do a fantastic job. Much better to let consumers decide.

yuhong 15y ago
Yea, I know about the cookie law fiasco.
smsm42 15y ago
+1 to that. In other comments people discuss if Microsoft was "convicted monopolist" or not - but much more important point is that all those convictions were absolutely useless and only represented chest-pounding and money-grabbing. What undermined Microsoft grip on OS and browser markets wasn't EU parliament or US DOJ. It was enterprising people offering viable alternatives. It is said that there's no bigger enemy of capitalism than capitalists. Big established businesses hate competition and would be much more comfortable enjoying lunches with government officials then competing with thousands of new kids on the block threatening to undermine them. So no wonder Microsoft seeks this route when it is available to them and wants to leverage politicians into competitive advantage. The power is out there, do you expect them just to ignore it? If the politicians take on themselves to be the judges of the markets, no wonder major markets players come to them and try to make them see things their way! This is happening and will keep happening inevitably. Of course, these tactics look stinky to the public, and it's proper to expose them - but don't expect them to go anywhere as long as there are politicians that have huge powers over the markets and players there. It's not like Microsoft is unique in doing something like this - every major player is doing it every day.
nyellin 15y ago
This. Large corporations are always going to attempt shitty legal maneuvers out of self interest. The real questions is whether the information revolution will succeed creating a more informed society, changing the way people vote and the way politicians legislate, bringing crap like this mostly to an end because of increased transparency. That, and so long as political mores remain unchanged, year after year we'll see scandal after scandal.

bithopper 15y ago

One wonders if a proper reaction would be to separate personal beliefs and a desire to build away from the effects of PR schemes and people. It seems like the current state is absurd, and that acknowledging this and getting on with making stuff is the easiest thing to do. The worrying part of ignoring, is not knowing what kind of impact these acts will have on oneself and the products one produces.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jobeirne 15y ago

This guy doesn't know the definition of 'monopoly.' Neither MS nor Google qualifies: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/note19.htm http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/note19.htm

Zirro 15y ago
I see "convicted monopolist" and "monopolistic behaviour" in the article. Where is he saying that either of them is a monopoly?
Dylan16807 15y ago
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly over operating systems in general, and google doesn't have a monopoly over search. But I think microsoft does have a monopoly when it comes to running most of the programs that a business already has. You can more or less replace unix with unix but you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet.
- berntb 15y ago
  >>you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet. That will be impossible in practice. It is in a monopoly's interest to not be compatible, so they will make complex systems that will be expensive and take a long time to be bug-compatible with. And when the APIs are cloned, they will have gone to something else. All this will also be well locked down with patents. The worst part (well, worst for me) is that the resulting systems will be unnecessarily complex and hence unpleasant to use for developers. That is, it lowers my life quality if I work with their systems.
barrkel 15y ago
A US court made a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
- 15y ago

yanw 15y ago

"The Economist" on a similar Microsoft/ICOMP/Burson-Marsteller anti-Google event that took place in London: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-google http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-g...

Falkvinge 15y ago
Thank you for this little gem. I have added it as an update.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Microsoft still seems to have that culture of playing dirty tricks on competitors. It has stuck with them.

powertower 15y ago

The slanderous words used at this seminar, which is brought together by many companies, with one being the convicted monopolist Microsoft... > in Google’s latest privacy scandal > Google made the headlines again > allegations that Google has downranked relevant search results Who wouldn't be enraged! Look. At. Those. Words. > designed to plant ungrounded ideas in the audience’s mind. Now. Think. Of. The. Children. And then they had the audacity to call the Google representatives to speak!

trotsky 15y ago

Is the definition of lobbyist different in Europe? Is the Pirate MP just not subjected to lobbyists otherwise or is this just mock outrage? It is very hard for me to believe this kind of anti-competitor lobbying doesn't go on all the time at the EP. It certainly does in Washington.

yobbobandana 15y ago
I imagine this article was intended as PR for the Pirate Party. "This is the kind of stuff we do not like, vote for us if you also do not like it." I think it targets their core demographic quite well. Whether it is mock outrage or not is a moot point.
- seabee 15y ago
  Whether anti-competitor lobbying goes on regularly is also a moot point. Being an MEP does not disqualify you from disliking parts of or associated with the EP. As an extreme example, the UK Independence Party (who want to leave the EU) have several elected MEPs. As such I feel confused by what the grandparent comment is trying to express.
  - trotsky 15y ago
    It does if all you're doing is singling out one specific participant and ignoring all other examples. Because then it becomes clear that you are just looking for either a good reason to trash that party or rush to the defense of the aggrieved. Which wouldn't be surprising, considering Google is most definitely spending their own lobbying dollars.
kzrdude 15y ago
A good lobbyist doesn't lie, doesn't FUD and maybe even doesn't exaggerate. Are your expectations different?
SteveJS 15y ago
This seems like some relevant history on your point. June 22, 2000: "Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley, says she does not see her constituent companies worried about DOJ antitrust scrutiny." http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18808921/the-men-who-took-down-microsoft.htm http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18808921/the-men-wh...

davyjones 15y ago

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Gandhi. I would like to insert "then they slander you, " right after the last comma.

ootachi 15y ago
Can we please not equate Google to Gandhi? Google is a corporation every bit as large, and every bit as purely self-interested, as Microsoft.

cooldeal 15y ago

I am sure Google only says good things about MS during its hifi lobbying efforts. Right? Imagine a convicted monopolist arguing that it's rivals be held to the same standard as it was. Not that is going to get much traction on this antiMS and proGoogle site.

gregable 15y ago
I'm not sure that Google concentrates it's lobbying efforts to say anything one way or the other about Microsoft. It seems it's biggest efforts were in trying to prevent SOPA/PIPA.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  Google outspent Microsoft in lobbying efforts spending in the US in 2011. Also, it has a commercial interest in SOPA not passing so their opposition is to be expected for their bottomline. If you think lobbying isn't done to enhance any company's bottomline at the expense of everyone else, then you're mistaken. http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-revealed-as-source-of-windows-vista-complaint/ http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-reveal...
  - archangel_one 15y ago
    Sure, maybe Google spent a lot on lobbying in 2011, but you don't know that any of that was smearing Microsoft from behind a sock puppet in the way that they have against Google here. While I don't like lobbying, I accept that Google needs to play the game while the rules are the way they are, and they don't necessarily have to badmouth Microsoft to do that - as you admit, they have presumably focused more on SOPA. And I don't see the huge problem with the link you present - in fact I don't think I'd call it "lobbying" at all. Google had a potentially legitimate complaint in asking that the court overseeing a convicted monopolist considers a particular part of their behaviour which obviously has the potential to impact on Google. It's up to the court to decide if they're infringing or not.
mda 15y ago
Can you show me a single example where Google did anything like this?

ceol 15y ago

> What did Google have to do with this discussion in need for regulating governments’ appetite for citizen data and corporations abusing their privacy policies? Everything. I would not be surprised if Google knew more than your government knows about you. Hopefully that does not sound sensationalist. Google also has come under a fire for their privacy policy changes, so that seminar was certainly not baseless, and I think it was a bit naive to assume a seminar about privacy wouldn't focus on Google. Maybe not the entire focus, but surely it would take up a noticeable chunk. Coming from Microsoft, however, I could see why the author walked out. The goal was not to educate the government or its people; the goal was to scare people into using Microsoft products.

rickmb 15y ago

Given Google's arrogant "we piss on stupid EU privacy sensibilities" stance, I wonder why Microsoft even bothers to poor gasoline on a an already raging fire. Besides, Google's anti-piracy and anti-privacy stance is largely opposed to everything Falkvinge stands for, whilst Microsoft has been playing relatively nice with civil rights for the past decade or so. The only problem I see here is that Microsoft is hiding behind some fake lobbyist front. What they are lobbying for sounds mostly factual to me.